Is a 10-pound rock hefted from an interstate overpass a “destructive device?”
Judge turns question and the fate of 3 men accused of M! for throwing a 10-pound rock from an overpass onto the windshield of an oncoming auto, killing the driver, over to the jury.
Did the judge 'chicken-out?
What the dictionary say?
What is you opinion?
linky-link, so we can get the whole story?
Well, not knowing the whole story or the law of the state in question, it may very well be that the question of whether a particular object is a “destructive device” is an issue of fact.
And judges cannot rule on issues of fact. That is the sole province of the jury.
Sua
Well, the rock is an object, and when thrown from the overpass had the ability to cause massive damage to the car. Seems reasonable enough to me that the judge cannot summarily dismiss the possibility that it qualifies under MI law. And then, as Sua says, it’s up to the jury to determine if it actually qualifies in this case.
Well, as one example of the legal definition of a “destructive device” :
It looks like it covers explosives and propellants, so I doubt a rock propelled by simple gravity qualifies (assuming this definition substantially matches the one in the venue of this particular trial). Is the use of a destructive device some kind of aggravating factor that would give the bastards an extra few years or the death penalty?
Should have included link. :smack:
The latest article on the rock throwing case
You will have to register to get access to published article.
For my 2 cents worth. A rock is just as much a destructive ‘device’ as a base ball bat would be if used as a weapon. The dictionary defines a device as something that is used to accomplish a purpose.
From the local TV News-10.
Trials for accused rock-throwers scheduled for January
They might weasel the explosive bit in by calling the rock a ‘gravity bomb’, but I don’t see how they can justify calling it a ‘device’ unless the perpetrators modified the rock in some way.
device
A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose, especially a machine used to perform one or more relatively simple tasks.
Did you say that the defendants are accused of murder? Was this a deliberate attempt on a life, or just mischief which happened to turn into criminal recklessness causing death?
In any case, I have a tangentially related anecdote to share. One winter I was travelling home with a couple of friends after playing an airsoft game, and some kids on an overpass threw snow (ice?) balls at my van. Ordinarily I would let such stupidity slide, but this was just too perfect an opportunity - late at night, with three guys in camoflauge fatigues and face paint, carrying M16A2 replica weapons. I slammed on the brakes, stopped the vehicle, and the three of us jumped out, rifles in hand, and ran toward the overpass embankment. I swear we made those kids piss themselves.
You mean a solid metal cannon ball fired by a cannon or catapult is not a destructive device?
It’s been a few years since I did physics problems, but I’m wondering whether the 10 lb rock is more destructive due to it’s vertical velocity or due to it’s horizontal velocity relative to the car (i.e. 60mph)
Fuji. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!
In your example, the cannon is the destructive device. The cannonball is the projectile.
Could you successfully argue that the victim’s speeding car enabled the rock to react with far more explosive force to the windshield than it would if it merely hit the ground from that same height? That this specific set of circumstances merits the rock’s inclusion in the category of destructive devices?
Not neccessarily. Muzzle loading cannons are not regulated as DDs.
IMO The DA screwed up by bringing a DD charge which I think is pretty weak case.
DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE - Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces; a missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; a mine, or a device similar to any of the devices described above; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and © any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described above and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. 18 U.S.C.
I just realized --it’s a Knoxville, Tennessee jury. DaaaAAaamn!
If they have ANY physical evidence linking those guys to this crime they could charge them with highway littering on top of everything else and the jury will go for it.
Still, this is an inventive charge on the DA’s part. I want to hear more about this case. Ordinarily I’d be wary of a charge like this but I have no sympathy or paitience for fuckwits who throw things off overpasses at cars.
Yes, they have the rock, photos of the damage, and possibly the car itself.
The darwin regressive dimwits have confessed responsibility. Probably in the hope of some plea deal. The trial per links above to be in Jan. or Feb. '05.
The three were just joy riding around in the wee hours looking for some ‘fun’ thing to do!
A rock is as much a “machine” as a sledge hammer is. They’re both used to apply mass to another object for the purpose of breaking or crushing it. Is a sledge hammer not a device/tool?
A rock isn’t contrived or invented, though. It’s just picked up. It’s the addition of a fixed handle that makes what is effectively no different from a rock into a useful tool, by increasing the amount of kinetic energy that can be delivered.
Your basic drift makes a certain amount of sense though. A stick used as a lever might be considered a machine – although I suppose it’s not really a lever until it’s paired with a fulcrum.
What the hell was the prosecution thinking?
I knew a kid who killed someone by heaving a rock from an overpass. While this doesn’t exactly match the definition posted above, I’m thinking destructive “act” would cover it.
Threadlink to what inspired this.